Walddk

The latter used in the BBO software too. 2♠ just made is 2♠= which makes more sense than 2♠+2. That would be two overtricks on BBO. You get around all the confusion and make it universal if everyone would write 2♠ 8 .... 2♠ 10 .... 2♠ 7, etc. In other words, the number of tricks declarer took in his contract. Roland

I now have the details I need, and the schedule will be listed on our vugraph web page in a day or two. I am happy to announce that we will be covering all of the John Roberts Teams as well as the Invitational Pairs. Two tables at all times. Here it is (soener than expected) ... http://online.bridgebase.com/vugraph/sched...?order_by=event By the way, did you notice how many vugraph free days we have from April 28 - June 10? Roland

We will be broadcasting from the Cavendish again. How much I don't know at this point. I am waiting for detailed information from Donna Compton who, among other duties, is in charge of internet vugraph. Security is not an issue as far as a time schedule is concerned. In all likelihood two tables throughout, but no promises. I will keep you posted and list the event on our vugraph schedule web page as soon as I have the info I need. Roland

Fortunately, the importance of BBO vugraph is appreciated by several other NCBO's. Let me bring Norway forward as an example and highlight the Nordic Championships 2007 (Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden) in early June. Have a look here ... http://nordic.bridge.no/modules.php?name=C...=showpage&pid=2 We did not even have to ask the Norwegian organisers. They have assigned two experienced operators for vugraph on BBO throughout, and we won't have to worry about the quality. As we have seen on numerous occasions, the organisation in Norway is second to none. The NBF is a dedicated BBO supporter; for reasons only known to themselves the FIGB is not. Perhaps we need new faces at the top before we will see the change that without doubt will benefit the Italian members, and as a consequence the rest of the bridge playing world. It is never too late to see the light. Let's hope that the Italians will pretty soon, because it would be a real shame if some of the best players on this planet are shut out from the best bridge site in the world. The Italian players don't want that, the Italian members don't want that, and deep down the FIGB doesn't want that either. Roland

I realise that but I still would not lead ♠A. I also accept that I am hopeless at matchpoints and that I am very reluctant to play the format. Unless they twist my arms of course :P I will stick to my ♣J. If this means a bottom, it won't be the first time. Roland

♣J. Do we have two spade tricks? Too bad, blame it on RHO who Blackwooded with no spade control; or maybe we have a spade ruff if I cash ♠A and lead another. No, I would not lead ♠A at the table. It takes two tricks to defeat a slam, and leading an unsupported ace on an auction like this is usually wrong. Roland

Nothing to worry about. Your (trap) pass was fine, and 9 times out of 10 your partner would reopen with a double. Unfortunately he had too many spades so that he was unable to picture your penalty. Furthermore, the best result you can get on the actual layout is the number of 50's. 3NT your way is not on after North's natural ♣10 lead. The maximum is 8 tricks (four spades, two hearts, one diamond and one club). Roland

Looking at a 14 count it can hardly come as a surprise to North that West has 7 solid spades, or six spades and ♣A. 2NT is what North should come up with. I am sure that 2NT has different meanings depending on agreement, but it is surely not natural. One method is Nilslands Slinkningar (Mats Nilsland, Sweden). http://www.syskon.nu/konventioner/konkurre...s_slinkn_01.pdf It's in Swedish, but if you scroll down and find 2NT, "Artificiellt utgångskrav" means "Artificial game force". Roland

We have indeed, and only a few days ago I sent an e-mail to Vincenzo Delle Cave, the BBO contact in Italy, about this and a few other events. We haven't had vugraph broadcasts from Italy for quite some time now and I keep getting questions as to why this is. The sad news is that we are facing the usual operator problem. No-one wants to pay their expenses (and small salaries). BBO's policy is that this is a concern for the organizers because we offer our software for free. In our vugraph guidelines we write: "All tournaments are welcome to use the BBO software for vugraph purposes. We do not charge a fee for the use of our software (nor do we charge a fee to people who watch our broadcasts), but you will be responsible for all arrangements and expenses." The FIGB, however, believes that BBO should pay the operators if we want to broadcast from their events. There is nothing new in this context, but the problem persists. Accordingly, chances are slim as far as Italy is concerned. I can't solve the problem, only Fred and the FIGB can. Roland

The seeding above is Cardsharp's guess as to what the seeding will be, not what it is. The seeding committee don't have a formal 'seeding point' approach, they each put forward their suggested seeding order and then argue about it. Btw are you the current Gold Cup Holder? Current Gold Cup holders are John Matheson, Malcolm Cuthbertson, Brian Short, David Walker, Douglas Piper and John Murdoch from Scotland, defeating Townsend (Gold, Forrester, Mizel) from England in the final. Very close match, 109-107 as far as I recall, and a thrilling finish on BBO. Roland

I contacted the EBU 10 days ago but haven't got anything back yet. I would be surprised if we don't show something (we did last year and the year before that). Roland

I would like to know their lead style. Do the lead 4th, 3rd/5th or attitude? Roland

http://www.prairienet.org/bridge/2over1.htm with many references (Thurston, Lawrence, Hardy, Bergen). Roland

Yes, and no Geraint Jones??? Appalling! Roland

I only see 8 hcp but I would still invite with 2NT. This is a very good 8 count, much better than many 9 and 10 counts. The vulnerability is also tempting. In a way I hope opener has a doubleton heart; my hand is no trumpy as you point out indirectly. I am in love with ♥10 ... sighhh ♥ Roland

The thing to remember here is that South knows she has more clubs than her partner. In order to be in a position to cash the 5th club, she must not block the suit by playing the king next. 4th best is paramount here, and also normal with four. The king is only right if you have KQx. Now it's your turn to unblock. Roland

♣4, original 4th best. Great lead, partner! Remember to buzz if you need a partner. I promise to return the 4 :) Roland

Maintenance (new machine) was scheduled for 07:45 GMT and was estimated to last for 15-30 minutes. It took a little longer than expected, and we are now back (at least I am) at 09:00 GMT = 10:00 am London = 11:00 Paris = 5:00 am New York = 2:00 am Los Angeles = 7:00 pm Sydney. Care to know what time it is in Karachi? :) Why don't you do it yourself? http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html Roland

5♣; I don't see an alternative with only one major card. In second seat I may choose 1♣. Roland

Abbreviations used by lazy players (like myself). 1-3-5: First, third, fifth = highest from touching honours, third best from three or four, fifth best from five or more. 1-2-4: First, second, fourth = highest from touching honours, second best from three, four or five small, fourth best from four or more (with an honour). If you lead 4th, the Rule of 11 applies. If you lead 3rd and 5th, the Rules of 12 and 10 apply. Links: http://bridgehands.com/R/Rule_of_11.htm http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Conventions/Rule12.html http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Conventions/Rule10.html Roland

To Phil and Mike: In an uncontested auction the chance of getting preference or support for ♠/♥ is fifty-fifty. However, I have a slight advantage if I pretend that I have longer hearts (♥, ♠, ♠). Now, if I get the heart preference I am hoping for, I am better positioned with exclusion because ♥K is a key card. Roland

I'm lost. Do you think I will proceed beyond 5♥ (no ♠A and no ♥K) if that is the response I get? I did set hearts, remember. Roland

A minority vote here. I would open 1♥ (no, I don't fear that it will go all pass). Since the 5-level is safe, the advantage of opening 1♥ rather than 1♠ is that ♥K will be a key card later when I, hopefully, get a chance to make an exclusion 5♦ bid. I play 1430 but 0314 when using exclusion, so I can stand any response over 5♦. Roland

No, but maybe 4 wins will be enough. Even that is a tough ask. I don't think they can, but I don't mind if I am proven wrong. Roland

Spades. 4♥. 3♠ does not imply a heart fit, but it shows values so I'm quite happy to rebid my strong 6-carder. If you think 3♠ is torture, then look at this ..... ♠ K8732 ♥ 3 ♦ KJ9542 ♣ 7 1♥ - 1♠ 2♣ - ?? Roland